Seniors Could Be Evicted Over Christmas Decorations in Gov’t Subsidized Housing: Report

Is it a clear case of religious discrimination in government-subsidized housing or a “disgruntled” resident “giving out very misguided information?”

The key could be the difference between a local public interest story and a national outrage.

According to a news release Wednesday from the Liberty Counsel — a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt group that provides legal representation in matters pertaining to evangelical Christian values — seniors at an apartment complex in Independence, Missouri, that’s subsidized by the Department of Housing and Urban Development have been disallowed from putting up outdoor Christmas decorations, including lights and lawn decorations.

Wreaths are allowed as long as they’re called “holiday” wreaths, Liberty Counsel said.

According to reporter Todd Starnes, residents could face eviction if they don’t comply with the regulation.

TRENDING: Rebel Yell Rings Out as USMC Major Warns Virginians Are Close to Tipping Point

The Liberty Counsel said it had “sent a demand letter to the MACO Management Company on behalf of residents at Grandview Estates, a HUD-subsidized residential complex. MACO Management has prohibited residents from decorating their duplexes with outside Christmas decorations, including lights and yard decorations. Nothing in the lease agreement or regulations supports such a ban and residents have previously displayed Christmas lights and yard decorations for many years.”

Liberty Counsel said MACO had sent the residents a letter in which it cited “[g]overnment’s Fair Housing rules. Everyone in the complex is funded in part by Government funds, so we are required to follow their rules.”

“However, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has no such rule,” the Liberty Counsel’s release said.

Liberty Counsel Memo by The Western Journal on Scribd

In an email to The Western Journal, Tammy Delcour, the regional manager for MACO Management Co., disputed the claims and said they were based on a single “disgruntled” resident.

“We have never banned any decorations, we love our residents and holidays,” she said.

“We have a disgruntled person on our hands giving out very misguided information,” Delcour said.

However, if that wasn’t misleading, the Liberty Counsel’s letter seemed to imply that MACO hadn’t disputed its characterization of the rules in the letter.

“In its December 17, 2019 response to Liberty Counsel’s letter, the management company failed to cite any HUD or ‘Government Fair Housing Rule’ supporting the Christmas light and decoration ban,” the group said.

RELATED: Couple’s Mobile Nativity Scene Defies Towns’ Anti-Nativity Pronouncement

“MACO Management instead claimed that its own lease agreements and ‘Rules and Regulations’ prohibit Christmas lights and decorations, but the actual language does not support the claimed ban, or MACO’s original claim,” it said.

A response to the property management company also seems to confirm that there is some kind of ban in place; it talks about how MACO previously referred to “the ‘lease agreement’ and or ‘MACO Management Rules and Regulations’ for support that residents are aware of the Christmas light ban.” These seem to be very specific allegations gleaned from a previous letter that don’t support MACO’s insistence this is just a disgruntled individual.

If the ban is in place and MACO refuses to remove it, there could be legal consequences.

“This ban violates the Fair Housing Act,” the letter continued.

“MACO is forbidden by the Act from discriminating against residents at this facility on the basis of religion,” it said. “Religious free exercise includes the display of holiday decorations. Christmas is a nationally recognized holiday and to ban religious decorations or celebrations in a federally subsidized or managed residential facility violates the Fair Housing Act and other federal laws. Any federal law or funding requirement that would restrict or prohibit residents’ religious holiday decorations would violate the First Amendment rights of the residents.”

Given the wide gulf in stories, we kind of have to wonder what is what here.

Disgruntled residents willing to make a much bigger deal out of things that wouldn’t ordinarily be an issue are nothing new, of course. That’s why we do have to be careful here.

That being said, the evidence from the letter seems problematic enough. If the First Amendment rights of these seniors are being violated, there need to be serious consequences for this.

Religious discrimination isn’t just problematic, it’s unconstitutional — particularly when these units are subsidized by the government.

Those who violate those freedoms should expect to be punished.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.